Critics call shenanigans after Apple, AT&T letters to FCC

Everyone is puzzling over Apple and AT&T's letters to the FCC about the …

All responses are in to the Federal Communications Commission's query asking why Apple put Google Voice for its iPhone on ice. But chances are that the answers that the FCC has received from Apple and AT&T will only provoke more questions.

Here's the good news, iPhone users. Never mind that New York Timesstory citing a Google spokesperson saying that Apple nixed the app around mid-July. "Contrary to press reports," Apple's letter insisted, the company hasn't rejected the feature. It's just continuing to "study" it.

"The application has not been approved because, as submitted for review, it appears to alter the iPhone’s distinctive user experience by replacing the iPhone’s core mobile telephone functionality and Apple user interface with its own user interface for telephone calls, text messaging and voicemail," Apple explained.

And that's a problem, it seems, because Google Voice "replaces Apple's Visual Voicemail by routing calls through a separate Google Voice telephone number that stores any voicemail, preventing voicemail from being stored on the iPhone, i.e., disabling Apple’s Visual Voicemail."

I guess so

But, iPhoneland is already wondering, why is it bad if consumers opt for some other voicemail service besides Apples'? And what does the company mean by "replace"? The software development kit that Apple offers third party vendors "does not make it possible to 'replace' the iPhone's core anything," argues Kevin Duerr of Riverturn, whose VoiceCentral app has also been put on hold by Apple, according to its FCC letter. "This is simply a very specific solution for Google Voice Users to utilize that distinct and separate service. It has to be accessed just as any other App does and it does not a replace a thing."

Duerr also puzzles at the section of the Apple response that implies that GV somehow messes with the "core functionality" of the iPhone, citing "the 'Phone' icon that is always shown at the bottom." "I guess so," he wrote, "that is unless a user chooses to put something else in their dock as Apple allows." So what exactly are Apples' standards for "replacement," developers are wondering.

Home alone?

That head-scratcher, however, pales in comparison with the question du jour—who made the decision to kick Google Voice down to observational purgatory? Apple or its partner AT&T? Or both?

Ars wishes that the FCC had posed its inquiries to the computer maker's lawyers just a little less narrowly. "Did Apple act alone, or in consultation with AT&T, in deciding to reject the Google Voice application and related applications?" the agency's letter asked the company. "If the latter, please describe the communications between Apple and AT&T in connection with the decision to reject Google Voice" (the italics are ours).

Alas, the FCC did not ask the simpler question—Did Apple confer with AT&T about Google Voice?—allowing the company to glide past that possibility in its response.

"Apple is acting alone and has not consulted with AT&T about whether or not to approve the Google Voice application," the manufacturer replied. "Apple alone makes the final decisions to approve or not approve iPhone applications" (our italics again).

But although Apple insists that it makes the last call regarding these devices, and that "no contractual conditions or noncontractual understandings with AT&T" affected the GV question, it does acknowledge deferring to AT&T elsewhere. The company says that it has agreed not to "include a functionality" that would let iPhone users fire up a VoIP session on AT&T's network "without obtaining AT&T's permission." You might call this the "no Skype on 3G" clause. At present iPhone users can access the VoIP service via WiFi, but not AT&T's cellular system.

"From time to time," Apple explained, "AT&T has expressed concerns regarding network efficiency and potential network congestion associated with certain applications, and Apple takes such concerns into consideration." This also takes some wind out of AT&T's initial statement, released shortly after the FCC issued its letters, that the company "does not manage or approve applications for the App Store."

What's odd though, is that Apple's response says the company "does not know if there is a VoIP element in the way the Google Voice application routes calls and messages." You'd think this would be something they'd look into, given their terms with AT&T. The telco says it doesn't think GV has a VoIP component, based on intel available on the Google website.

Google's letter to the FCC has a summary of the service which says that the app "does not provide the underlying communications pathway." But the company redacted the section in the response that discloses what Apple told Google when it allegedly rejected the feature.

Multiple, truncated, garbled

In any event, AT&T's letter claims that it had nothing to do with the Google Voice decision, and never second-guesses iPhone applications—except when it does, most notably regarding VoIP apps. Plus the response acknowledges that the company gives the hairy eyeball to features that redirect television signals to the iPhone, citing network congestion as a concern. That, presumably, is why Slingplayer Mobile was exiled to WiFi.

AT&T also told the FCC that it has objected to three other applications. First, an app that took data from AT&T's myWireless website. "Upon being appraised of AT&T's concerns," the letter disclosed, "the provider withdrew its application from the Apple App Store." Second, a feature that allowed users to access AT&T Wi-Fi hotspots without reviewing the company's terms of service. That app's developer eventually fixed the problem. And third, an SMS message device that allegedly sent "multiple, truncated or garbled copies of the same SMS message" to non-iPhone users. AT&T alerted Apple to its concerns, its letter says, and Apple got the developer to upgrade the software.

Assume nobody's lying?

Two quick lines in AT&T's response have at least one company cheering. "We plan to take a fresh look at possibly authorizing VoIP capabilities on the iPhone for use on AT&T’s 3G network," the letter mentioned. "AT&T will promptly update the Commission regarding any such change in its policies." Skype's Christopher Libertelli sent us a statement hailing the announcement.

But much of the Internet is marinating with skepticism about the veracity of these claims. Some are even accusing Apple of lying, suggesting that the company did indeed reject Google Voice and is now backtracking on the move. The reform group Free Press' review of the responses make it all sound like a Hitchcock movie. The FCC's probe has "ripped back the curtain on the wireless market," Free Press's Ben Scott declared late on Friday, "and revealed AT&T's secret veto power over applications on the iPhone that offer consumers voice services over the Internet."

Even observers willing to give AT&T the benefit of the doubt frame the story in unflattering terms. "As Google Voice—an Internet phone service—can be seen as a replacement for some AT&T services, it's logical to assume that AT&T would have pushed Apple to reject Google's app," comments the Silicon Valley Insider. "But assuming AT&T is not lying to the government, Apple seems to have acted alone."

And a new survey released just before the publication of these responses suggests how the public will receive this dialogue over the coming weeks. ChangeWave Research's latest poll of iPhone users indicates that "the better consumers feel about their iPhones, the worse they feel about AT&T," as the company's research director put it. Thirty-two percent of queried iPhone lovers said Apple's exclusive contract with the telco is their top peeve; almost a full quarter complain about AT&T data and voice speeds.

What matters the most, of course, is not what bloggers and pollsters think, but what the FCC thinks about what AT&T and Apple claim they did or did not do with Google Voice. The agency has an Open Commission scheduled for Thursday, and it's packed with proposed investigations of the wireless industry. Everybody is also griping about exclusive handset/wireless service deals, especially over at Congress. So you can bet your black leather snap-on iPhone cover that somebody at the Commission is going to say something about this mess some time soon.

Matthew Lasar / Matt writes for Ars Technica about media/technology history, intellectual property, the FCC, or the Internet in general. He teaches United States history and politics at the University of California at Santa Cruz.